The video is here. The main page is here.
I did this bit a long time ago, but never got around to posting it here. It’s brief and a traditional response to the traditional assertion that atheism is just another religion. In case anyone’s wondering why it’s not also live on Support Atheism, as of this writing, they’re moving servers and updating, so have a whole backlog of material (mine and others’) that they have yet to post. Once that happens, I’ll continue to announce it here.
It’s a damn good thing this isn’t called “Atheist News Asshole” (though I do contribute to Atheist News) because I always take days or sometimes weeks to get to the big stuff. Let’s start with the essentials, from The Young Turks:
And now some more in-depth insight, courtesy of Zinnia Jones:
And before we go any further, let’s be really clear on what a “bully” is, per Dictionary.com:
Bully:
N. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.
V. (with object) to act the bully toward; intimidate; domineer.
V. (without object) to be loudly arrogant and overbearing.
A bully is someone who isn’t nice to someone else for whatever reason, and it tends to be a physical not-nice, though it can be
verbal/emotional. What I don’t get is, how was Savage “bullying” the students?
Let’s pretend he was. Read more »
You’ve seen the ads. They usually pop up right before the YouTube video of your friend’s baby saying, “kitty,” or, in my case, some Super Mario/Star Trek/Star Wars mash-up video. They start off pleasant enough. They’re of some normal-looking, everyday person, someone who could work with you, who could live right down the street. They talk about their normal days, their normal jobs, their normal families. It’s not nutty or crazy or chalk-full-of-made-up-bullshit at all.
Then it comes. “And I’m a Mormon.”
You’ve just been brain-raped. You thought you were gonna see some pleasant, slightly annoying, but ultimately inoffensive ad for home insurance or laundry detergent, or, worse, the latest E! reality show glorifying some famous-because-they’re-famous flavor-of-the-month celebrity.
But no.
You’ve been lulled, through Americana stereotypes, to consider, even if only for a second, that Mormons are JUST LIKE YOU! And hey, if they’re JUST LIKE YOU, then they can’t be too nutty, can they? Sure they wear magic underwear. Sure they overwhelmingly supported the legislation to strip gays of their civil rights in California in ’08, but they’re not a pack of dicks. They’re Susie, who works with you in accounts receivable. Or Dave, who’s kid plays softball with your kid. Or maybe even Chuck, your X-Box Live acquaintance who occasionally and handily whoops you at multi-player in the latest Halo incarnation.
Or Daisy.
Daisy’s not white. Daisy’s not a guy. Daisy’s not wearing that preppie shirt-and-tie-and-pants. Daisy’s not the stereotypical white (male) Mormon. She’s JUST LIKE YOU! And if that’s the case, then the LDS church can’t be all that bad, can it?
After I wrote about Daisy here, she contacted me. And here’s what she had to say to me (I’m in italics, she’s in bold, and other stuff is in italics bold):
I’m so flattered that you took the time to come to my lil old blog.
You’re welcome. You did say you were a “dedicated” blogger, so I figured I’d check out your dedicated blog.
Lil ol me, convert who became Momo for her hottie husband.
Notice I did say “presumed.” I obviously was and am not privy to the specific reasons why you became a Mormon.
Right… cuz I couldn’t find any hot and decent guys before he came along.
I never said that.
Right… cuz I am anti-social,
Never said that either.
weird blogger who decided she would give up her raging party and alcohol filled lifestyle
Or that. Read more »
This latest conversation took me for-fucking-ever to get to and to finish. Unfortunately, you’ll find many redundancies and repetitions. Because it’s taken so long and I’m frankly so tired of it, I’ve provided no commentary at the end. My text is in italics. Steve’s is in bold.
Hi Steve,
I understand you may choose not to respond. I’ve answered all of your questions, including the one on whether I’d like to interview acquaintances of yours who also witnessed God.
>something cannot come from nothing Anton. if you are a scientist you understand basic causation.
I’m a linguist, which is a kind of scientist. And yes, I understand causation, but just because we don’t know the cause of something 1. doesn’t mean there wasn’t one and 2 doesn’t mean it was what we assume it to be. My understanding of current cosmology is that time began with the universe, thus, there was no “before” the universe. Thus, no “cause” in the traditional sense.
>where did the soup of organic chemicals come from?
As far as I’ve heard, some from the atmosphere, some from the ground, some maybe even from space. I’m not entirely sure. Sagan might say that it all came from star material. My understanding of current cosmology is that it all ultimately came from a highly dense singularity. But don’t quote me on that. 
>you always face the problem of causation. nothing we have observed empirically works that way. the only logical explanation is an uncaused cause.
That may seem attractive, sure, but it still requires explanation. Where did the “uncaused” cause come from, how did it get there, why did it do what it did, etc.? If current cosmology is correct and time began with the universe, there is no need for an “uncaused” cause. If the universe is infinite, there is still no need for an “uncaused” cause. Why is it theists find the notion of an infinite god so acceptable, but the notion of an infinite universe so unacceptable? They’re the same notion, merely with different names.
>an intelligent designer. the deeper science goes in understanding the radical complexity and intricisy of the Universe the more they see intelligent design as the only viable explanation.
Can you name a single legitimate, peer-reviewed, non-creationist-funded scientist who has proved, not asserted, but proved that there was, in fact, an intelligent designer? Are you saying that the appearance of patterns and complexity means that such observances were designed? The issue I see is even if we were to accept the ID idea, it still needs to be proved.
Moreover, everything I’ve heard from legitimate, peer-reviewed scientists such as Hawking is that the laws that we’ve already observed, such as gravity, explain the complexity we see. Read more »
